> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 16:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:>> >>> > So there are ~150 tracepoints, but this code is also being proposed>> for>> > use with 'dynamic debug' of which there are > 1000, and I'm hoping for>> > more users moving forward.>>>> Even 1000 is fine to walk, but if it was sorted a binary search>> would be much faster anyways. That is then you would still>> need to search for each module, but that is a relatively small>> number (< 100)>> xfs has > 100 tracepoints

Doesn>>>>> > Also, I think the hash table deals nicely with modules.>>>> Maybe but it's also a lot of code. And it seems to me>> that it is optimizing the wrong thing. Simpler is nicer.>> I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I find hashes easier> to deal with than binary searching sorted lists. Every time you add a> tracepoint, you need to resort the list.

The only time you add one is when you load a module, right? When you dothat you only sort the section of the new module.

> Hashes are much easier to deal with and scale nicely. I don't think> there's enough rational to switch this to a binary list.

Well problem is that the code is very complicated today. I suspectthis could be done much simpler if it wasn't so overengin